Is GNS still a thing? On the internet I mean?

I friend of mine recently told me he thought he was either "Simulationist or Gamist". He treads lightly on the internet, but apparently long enough ago that he would say something as written above. I thought that wrong headed bullshit died a long time ago. Are there still sites or message boards or (god forbid) game designers that use that terminology?

A couple of people were trying to thing it on EN World this last week. I offered my blunt criticism of GNS's descriptive ability. I was told that either I had never read Ron's essays or I had forgotten what I read.

So, yeah, alive and well.

I think GNS has some limited usefulness as broad and vague descriptive terminology.  It's kind of like D&D alignment terminology, or like the terms "old school" or "new school."  That is, if you describe a game using the GNS terms, I get an immediate general idea of the kind of game it is (or at least the kind of approach it emphasizes), so it's useful in that sense.  But if you try to make precise definitions or develop a formal and consistent classification system based on the terminology, the wheels fall off and you end up looking the fool.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;466496I think GNS has some limited usefulness as broad and vague descriptive terminology.  It's kind of like D&D alignment terminology, or like the terms "old school" or "new school."  That is, if you describe a game using the GNS terms, I get a immediate general idea of the kind of game it is (or at least the kind of approach it emphasizes), so it's useful in that sense.  But if you try to make precise definitions or develop a formal and consistent classification system based on the terminology, the wheels fall off and you end up looking the fool.

I don't visit the Forge much, but from what I understand, that's actually what has mainly happened over there, with the Big Model largely replacing GNS for technical discussions of game play.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;466496But if you try to make precise definitions or develop a formal and consistent classification system based on the terminology, the wheels fall off and you end up looking the fool.

More generally (outside of rpg games), this seems to be the case almost universally in practice.

With the exception of some areas in the hard sciences (ie. chemistry, physics, math, etc ...), there's very few niches where this can be done effectively without the wheels falling off.

Quote from: KrakaJak;466493Is GNS still a thing? On the internet I mean?

I friend of mine recently told me he thought he was either "Simulationist or Gamist". He treads lightly on the internet, but apparently long enough ago that he would say something as written above. I thought that wrong headed bullshit died a long time ago. Are there still sites or message boards or (god forbid) game designers that use that terminology?

The Forge website is still around and active (though many indie designers have left it), and it still hosts Ron's essays on GNS theory.  

I would point out that "Simulationist" and "Gamist" are terms that predate Ron's GNS writings.  They were coined back in the 90s in discussion on rec.games.frp.advocacy.  From my observation, a lot of people have heard of those terms, but they generally understand them more-or-less as they were originally coined.  

NOTE:

1) In the original rgfa discussion, people who play for story are "Dramatist".  

2) In Ron's GNS model, people who play for story are Simulationist if they have a pre-determined theme (according to Ron, like White Wolf, Theatrix, and other games), or Narrativist if they are addressing a moral/ethical premise.  

In practice, even if they have heard of the terms from Ron's essays, people still think of Simulationist as being about simulation, and do not include explicitly dramatic games.

Quote from: jhkim;466500original rgfa discussion, people who play for story are "Dramatist".  

2) In Ron's GNS model, people who play for story are Simulationist if they have a pre-determined theme (according to Ron, like White Wolf, Theatrix, and other games), or Narrativist if they are addressing a moral/ethical premise.  

So problematic... I actually used Theatrix on EN World as an example of narrativist-simulationist convergence, and why that created problems for Ron's three-color theory. It's simply difficult to say character in Vampire don't break premise, or that characters in a "moral exploration" story don't exist in some conventional text, or that this crossover represents any kind of shift in playstyle.

Rather than rehash old theoretical arguments, I've been working in my "copious spare time" on a terminology for describing actual play in a more accessible, and less contentious, way.

Greasy Nacho Salsa, what?

Quote from: jhkim;4665002) In Ron's GNS model, people who play for story are Simulationist if they have a pre-determined theme (according to Ron, like White Wolf, Theatrix, and other games), or Narrativist if they are addressing a moral/ethical premise.

If you look at the early GNS essays, it's pretty easy to see how Edwards developed the GNS:

(1) Take the Threefold Model (which is actually a fairly useful model within its specific scope of describing the factors considered during specific decision-making at the gaming table).

(2) Attempt to broaden the Threefold Model so that it covers much more than specific decision-making. (Somewhat useful since there are some typical agendas which accompany prioritizing/preferring certain types of decisions over others.)

(3) Take a very narrow slice from the "dramatist" portion of the theory that corresponded to Edward's preferences in gaming and label that slice "narrativism".

(4) Take all the left over material you just lopped off from the "dramatist" stance and stuff it arbitrarily into "simulationist". (Why? AFAICT, Edwards never actually understood simulationist play. Ergo, it was a convenient dumping ground for playing styles he found inconvenient.)

The result is something which is functionally broke and conceptually incoherent.

I frequently find the Threefold useful. GNS, on the other hand, is basically worthless (particularly in comparison to its progenitor). Unfortunately, GNS has so thoroughly poisoned the well when it comes to the terms "gamist" and "simulationist" that it's difficult to have a meaningful public discussion using the Threefold.

Quote from: Phantom Black;466508Greasy Nacho Salsa, what?

Oh God I wish. That would be delicious.

Okay, so it's still a thing and it's mere mention still brings about pseudo-intellectual bullshit. Gotcha. I had not heard it mentioned in a while and presumed it dead. Sorry for stirring that pot.

I still see these terms thrown around on forums (lately quite a bit on en world). Also seeing terminology employed by video game designers and academics. One of the problems i see with this is the jargon can confuse people who are unfamiliar with it and it is often used to make a simple idea seem more weighty or complex.

My father was a sales trainer and he used a social styles program in his courses to help sales people adapt to the personalities of their clients. There were four social styles: amiable, expressive, driver and analytical. According to the program each style makes buying decisions differently. Analyticals need info, expressives need personal connection, etc. It was a model you could apply to improve your overall chances of landing sales, but it was important to realize it was only a model. People are individuals and don't adhere neatly to types. You could lose a sale just as easily by adhering too rigidly to the model and ignoring what the customer is really trying to tell you.

Quote from: pawsplay;466497I don't visit the Forge much, but from what I understand, that's actually what has mainly happened over there, with the Big Model largely replacing GNS for technical discussions of game play.

If The Big Model is a sword, GNS is the blade. Sure, you've got a hilt and pommel and everything as well, but what does the nasty work is the blade.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;466509... it's pretty easy to see how Edwards developed the GNS:

...

(3) Take a very narrow slice from the "dramatist" portion of the theory that corresponded to Edward's preferences in gaming and label that slice "narrativism".

(4) Take all the left over material you just lopped off from the "dramatist" stance and stuff it arbitrarily into "simulationist". (Why? AFAICT, Edwards never actually understood simulationist play. Ergo, it was a convenient dumping ground for playing styles he found inconvenient.)

The result is something which is functionally broke and conceptually incoherent.

I frequently find the Threefold useful. GNS, on the other hand, is basically worthless (particularly in comparison to its progenitor). Unfortunately, GNS has so thoroughly poisoned the well when it comes to the terms "gamist" and "simulationist" that it's difficult to have a meaningful public discussion using the Threefold.

This, this. A thousand times this.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;466496I think GNS has some limited usefulness as broad and vague descriptive terminology.  It's kind of like D&D alignment terminology, or like the terms "old school" or "new school."  That is, if you describe a game using the GNS terms, I get an immediate general idea of the kind of game it is (or at least the kind of approach it emphasizes), so it's useful in that sense.  But if you try to make precise definitions or develop a formal and consistent classification system based on the terminology, the wheels fall off and you end up looking the fool.

This, it's handy to be able to say "this RPG is more G than N" or whatever, but it's a broad triangle diagram, not a rigid set of categories.

It's a tool, nothing more.

Quote from: KrakaJak;466493Is GNS still a thing? On the internet I mean?

...

Are there still sites or message boards or (god forbid) game designers that use that terminology?

A chap called Richard Stokes writes regular columns on http://www.ukroleplayers.com where he is in effect trying to resurrect a lot of GNS stuff; although he at least largely avoids the specific terminology of G, N and S, he has considerable praise for Forge theory. (See the "Columns" subforum on ukroleplayers.com for links and discussion.)

Highlights:- calling comments in traditional roleplaying books "asinine" which refer to the GM as having ultimate authority over the game, and backing this up with references to "social contracts".

My riposte on the discussion thread:- hang on, you've missed the point of the GM's final authority:- you haven't given any thought to immersion in this analysis.

There is a lot of discussion of immersion versus GNS on the Omnifray hosted forums on ukroleplayers.com in the thread about the Invitation to Soul's Calling freebie PDF. You might find it interesting, although it eventually derails the thread, and my responses are a bit long-winded and lost up my own arse if I'm honest. At one point I provide copious links to and quotes from Forge theory including the amusing "brain damage" thread on the Forge which Ron Edwards eventually closed when it became clear he was offending people. Partly in response to me referring (admittedly offensively) to heavily railroaded gaming as an "abortion" of a playstyle, Richard Stokes then concludes that I believe there is only One True Way to play trad RPGs and that he needs to steer clear of me and my games. (Because clearly someone who thinks that a critical feature of a whole playstyle is "asinine" and who promotes the theories of someone who after formulating those theories at one stage called "almost all story-ish roleplayers" literally brain-damaged because they don't follow narrativist doctrine... would never subscribe to any kind of One True Way views!?)

The only thing I would ask is - if any of you do turn up on ukroleplayers.com, please be polite and don't flame or insult people there. The free-for-all style of conversation which works great on this site simply would not be welcome there.